320Hp in a narrow bodied car... why have I not killed myself yet?

[JPlonghood]

I just came in from some hard driving in my plain looking '74 911 w/ a 3.0 Turbo stuffed in the back. Why is this car so much fun to drive hard and not fall off the road backwards like a 930 would? It does slide and power oversteer at will by controlling the throttle/turbo, but hasn't snapped suddenly like the old 930's I've driven in the past. I am just throwing my quandry out there... it goes against everything I have experienced/known/been told.

[Tom F.]

Having owned a 3.0 turbo and several early 911s, my guess is that the 74 simply has lower limits, which makes it easier to drive. Also, if you're running it with a 915, then it may be easier to keep the engine "on the turbo."

[kenikh]

Having driven narrow cars with similar power on a narrow body like a 2.8SS (just under 300 HP), I know what you mean. I do think that a 5 speed trans helps A LOT, as does an LSD and well tuned suspension. If your turbo is upgraded in any way (higher CR, more progressive turbo), this helps, too, as power delivery is far more linear and predictable. Admittedly, the 2.8SS doesn't build torque like a 3.0 turbo, but is definitely more eager from idle to 2000 RPM.

Remember that the early turbos only ran 225 rear tires, which can be stuffed under a narrow body, just like the 2.8SS mentioned above. Thus the contact advantage doesn't exist, with the only advantage being a wider track on the turbo. Again, this can be compensated for on a narrow car with big t-bars, monoballs, sways and upgraded shocks, just like the 2.8SS car above, which really is a kitten to drive in anger.

[Tom F.]

The suspension geometry was different on the 930, too. It's not the horsepower with the Turbo, it's the torque surge. It's simply crazy at around 3,000 rpm, depending on how the car is tuned.

[a911s]

Maybe, Barrett Smith should chime in. Driving his car at the limit is a hoot! 225s all around/RS flares (see Excellence November 2008 for specs).

[kenikh]

What I have taken away from my years driving these cars is that most cars aren't set up all that well and that most cars are also over-tired. When you get a well set up car, you end up in JPs shoes, shocked at what the car will do. These cars are light and even an early turbo with 260 HP has more than enough tire.

My little 2 liter SWB will outhandle my skills on 165s, but have still given cold sweats to guys with big race tires and 3 liter motors. Dial a car in with fresh bushings, proper camber, good shocks and a perfect corner balance and you won't be let down.

Paul Donkin drilled that lesson home to me when I got started and I have taken that lesson as gospel. He was right.

[JPlonghood]

[QUOTE=kenikh;246185]What I have taken away from my years driving these cars is that most cars aren't set up all that well and that most cars are also over-tired. When you get a well set up car, you end up in JPs shoes, shocked at what the car will do. These cars are light and even an early turbo with 260 HP has more than enough tire. [QUOTE=kenikh;246185]

Thanks guys for putting a bit of self security feeling back into my spirited drives. I will still treat this car w/ some cautious respect, but won't feel like I'm flying a crippled airplane w/out a parachute each time I get behind the wheel.

I am used to qualifying and driving 911's into some type of category - S, RS, RSR, etc - where the drivetrain, suspension, and exterior look follow some not so vague set of known guidelines. This car is just too far beyond what I would have normally built. I purchased it from the SF mechanic who owned it for the past 8+ years, Tom Amon. Complete sleeper and IS set up well w/ modified suspension and brakes. The car is super light w/ no sunroof, a/c, or even power windows adding credence to Kenikh's statement above regarding the correlation between weight and amount of tire... this turbo is rolling on 205's.

[berettafan]

Kenik what would be your understanding of 'proper camber'?

All the negative you can get...or not necessarily?

[kenikh]

Complete sleeper and IS set up well w/ modified suspension and brakes. The car is super light w/ no sunroof, a/c, or even power windows adding credence to Kenikh's statement above regarding the correlation between weight and amount of tire... this turbo is rolling on 205's.

A slightly off topic question: what transmission is in the car? 901, 915 or G50? I will say that I am very impressed that the car is on 205s, as I have already made the investment in 215/60s for the rears on my car, which will make about the same power as yours.

Kenik what would be your understanding of 'proper camber'?

All the negative you can get...or not necessarily?

I wish I had a more qualified answer, but in reality, I just trust my mechanic's judgement when he tells me that he made the camber and toe ideal for my spec and type of driving. He has done both of my cars.

My '65 PY SWB is totally stock: stock t-bars, no rear sway bar, fixed shocks and shock mounts, 165 tires and it is perfectly dialed. The only change is that the car is slightly lowered. When he did my 'S', it had Koni reds, 22mm sways, stock t-bars, 7/8 RS wheels w/ RS flares and was lowered to race height with bump steer kit - again perfect.

He will do the 'S' again when completed to compensate for the myriad changes I have done. The flares are gone and will be a narrow body again with 7R offset, 8" rear wheels with 215/60s rear and 7R wheels with 195/65 up front. It will still have the Konis and 22mm sway, but will be upgraded to ER PB bushings, 21/28 t-bars, gusseted rear shock towers, ER front strut brace and late adjustable rear spring plates. I expect an amazingly compliant yet scathingly sharp handling car, as a result.

I have the suspension sheets for both cars somewhere, but can't find them right now - they are probably in hard copy in my stack of papers at home.

[Tom F.]

Being a big Turbo fan, I would love to see some photos of your car, John.